Cargando…

Development and validation of the Collaborative Health Outcomes Information Registry body map

INTRODUCTION: Critical for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain is the anatomical distribution of pain. Several body maps allow patients to indicate pain areas on paper; however, each has its limitations. OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive body map that can be universally applied across p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scherrer, Kristen Hymel, Ziadni, Maisa S., Kong, Jiang-Ti, Sturgeon, John A., Salmasi, Vafi, Hong, Juliette, Cramer, Eric, Chen, Abby L., Pacht, Teresa, Olson, Garrick, Darnall, Beth D., Kao, Ming-Chih, Mackey, Sean
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7813550/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33490848
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000000880
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Critical for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain is the anatomical distribution of pain. Several body maps allow patients to indicate pain areas on paper; however, each has its limitations. OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive body map that can be universally applied across pain conditions, we developed the electronic Collaborative Health Outcomes Information Registry (CHOIR) self-report body map by performing an environmental scan and assessing existing body maps. METHODS: After initial validation using a Delphi technique, we compared (1) pain location questionnaire responses of 530 participants with chronic pain with (2) their pain endorsements on the CHOIR body map (CBM) graphic. A subset of participants (n = 278) repeated the survey 1 week later to assess test–retest reliability. Finally, we interviewed a patient cohort from a tertiary pain management clinic (n = 28) to identify reasons for endorsement discordances. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient between the total number of body areas endorsed on the survey and those from the body map was 0.86 and improved to 0.93 at follow-up. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the 2 body map graphics separated by 1 week was 0.93. Further examination demonstrated high consistency between the questionnaire and CBM graphic (<10% discordance) in most body areas except for the back and shoulders (≈15–19% discordance). Participants attributed inconsistencies to misinterpretation of body regions and laterality, the latter of which was addressed by modifying the instructions. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the CBM is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the distribution of pain.